Toddler-speak and conceptual analysis
March 8th 2010 22:09
So Socrates asked Laches: What is courage? Laches answered: Remaining at your post. To which Socrates replied: No, no, no. You've only given me an example of courage, and of just one sort, whereas I'm looking for a general definition of all sorts of courage.
Skip forward two and half thousand years, and people are still playing variations of the same game.
The goal might be to break down a proposition or an idea into other ideas. For instance, reducing "The present king of France is bald" into claims like "There is a king of France", "There's only one king of France" and "He's bald".
Or the goal might be more obviously lexicographical -- for instance, making a list of all "folk" beliefs that are asserted about a word like "mind" or "knowledge", and from such a list concluding what that word means.
In situations where the folk beliefs are vague or contradictory, the task might even be seen not as description of an everyday or scientific concept, based on how that concept is used in practice and tested against intuition or corpus data, but as fixing up, improving, tending the concept.
Well, I reckon toddler-speak is a useful corrective for these sorts of approaches.
Two examples: --
1. The toddler heard that the family cat was named "Izzy". So she began to call all four-footed animals "Izzy".
2. The toddler learnt the words "stuck" for toy problems, "yummies" for food, and "yucks" for defecation. So when she became constipated, she uttered the words: "Mummy, my yucks are stuck."
Two morals of the stories: --
1. Words as causal levers. To call something "stuck" is to ask help for unsticking it -- the faeces are on a par with the toys.
There is a temptation when thinking about language to treat words like labels or pictures. But at least for toddlers, words are more like tools -- the toddler learns that on making a particular noise, she/he will get a particular response.
2. Words defined by paradigms, the implication being that Laches had the right idea, and that the search for a conceptual analysis-type definition is either bound to end in disappointment, or is not that meaningful an activity.
Words in natural usage aren't mathematically precise -- not only is it difficult to generate that sort of definition for them, but there will continually be creativity in their usage. They're designed by evolution to be open-ended, to cope with novel situations.
You don't teach a toddler language by stipulating the necessary and sufficient conditions for usage (as a philosopher or a mathematician might), nor by trying to paraphrase the idea in a restrictive way (as a dictionary might). Rather, you use the word in a particular context, and the toddler has the tools -- is presumably born with the tools -- to generalize.
Skip forward two and half thousand years, and people are still playing variations of the same game.
The goal might be to break down a proposition or an idea into other ideas. For instance, reducing "The present king of France is bald" into claims like "There is a king of France", "There's only one king of France" and "He's bald".
Or the goal might be more obviously lexicographical -- for instance, making a list of all "folk" beliefs that are asserted about a word like "mind" or "knowledge", and from such a list concluding what that word means.
In situations where the folk beliefs are vague or contradictory, the task might even be seen not as description of an everyday or scientific concept, based on how that concept is used in practice and tested against intuition or corpus data, but as fixing up, improving, tending the concept.
***
Well, I reckon toddler-speak is a useful corrective for these sorts of approaches.
Two examples: --
1. The toddler heard that the family cat was named "Izzy". So she began to call all four-footed animals "Izzy".
2. The toddler learnt the words "stuck" for toy problems, "yummies" for food, and "yucks" for defecation. So when she became constipated, she uttered the words: "Mummy, my yucks are stuck."
Two morals of the stories: --
1. Words as causal levers. To call something "stuck" is to ask help for unsticking it -- the faeces are on a par with the toys.
There is a temptation when thinking about language to treat words like labels or pictures. But at least for toddlers, words are more like tools -- the toddler learns that on making a particular noise, she/he will get a particular response.
2. Words defined by paradigms, the implication being that Laches had the right idea, and that the search for a conceptual analysis-type definition is either bound to end in disappointment, or is not that meaningful an activity.
Words in natural usage aren't mathematically precise -- not only is it difficult to generate that sort of definition for them, but there will continually be creativity in their usage. They're designed by evolution to be open-ended, to cope with novel situations.
You don't teach a toddler language by stipulating the necessary and sufficient conditions for usage (as a philosopher or a mathematician might), nor by trying to paraphrase the idea in a restrictive way (as a dictionary might). Rather, you use the word in a particular context, and the toddler has the tools -- is presumably born with the tools -- to generalize.
| 58 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by tiggyd
There is something to think about! Great post!